Sociology of Interpersonal Relationships: Annotated Bibliography

Baack, D., Fogliasso, C., and Harris, J. (2000). The personal impact of ethical decisions: A social penetration theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 24, 39–49.

This article describes an issue of “gaps” in research for understanding the structure and process that ethical standards erode or decline. Using issue examples in the workplace such as promotion, sexual harassment, labor negotiations, consensual relationships, liability, and so on, the researchers wanted to categorize and systematize the process by which unethical behavior might arise through the use of social penetration theory. As the researchers described it, social penetration had a working definition of “explaining the evolution of interpersonal relationships” (39). 

That evolution is then applied to the relationship a person has with a certain ethical or moral standard. The article explores the connection between personality layers as defined by social penetration theory and how ethical decisions are made and the thinking that occurs to justify eroding the most ethical behavior to something more unethical. This article is relevant because the value we place in relationships is often contextual, and people define that context based on standards. Understanding how ethical standards can be measured in gradation helps illuminate the way people define the context of their relationships.

Altman, I., Vinsel, B., & Brown, B. B. (1981). Dialectic conceptions in social psychology: An application to social penetration and privacy regulation. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (107–157). New York: Academic Press Inc.

This chapter examined interpersonal relationships as discussed and defined by prevalent and widely accepted social penetration theory definitions in the context of long periods of time, such as long-term relationships both romantic and business, including how these relationships grow and erode. The authors examine the branch of social penetration theory that looks at the development of relationships through stages, beginning with stranger, progressing at some point in the relationship to acquaintance or loose friend and then eventually becoming more intimate as the model for measuring long-term relationships.  The authors then examine how social penetration is similar to and dissimilar from privacy regulation and what cultural expectations and practices help differentiate the two. The authors conclude that our privacy expectations and regulations are somewhat informed by our expectations for developing a long-term relationship, and intimacy and privacy are linked to co-exist, grow, and sometimes degrade accordingly to one another.

The article is relevant to research on social penetration for a number of reasons; foremost among them being that any privacy policy is a social contract that we have with our community but it also regulates how we interact with people and our relationships based on whether or not the space we are in feels public or private and our own assessment of the context and expected rules. Therefore, outside factors such as privacy policies can affect the level of intimacy and comfortability and communication in other relationships that might have a different outcome and perception in a different environment.